“Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains. Those who believe themselves to be masters of others are, in fact, greater slaves than they.”
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Foreword
The purpose of this text is to create a foundation for studying the ideology and scope of liberation movements, their roles and objectives—particularly within the social context of Azerbaijan. This text is presented in two distinct parts. The first section offers a brief explanation of liberation movements, their characteristics, and their roles. The second section attempts—albeit briefly—to align the theoretical space of the first part with the current socio-political landscape of Azerbaijani society. It is hoped that this effort will be a positive step toward future actions and discussions.
Liberation Movements and Identity Politics
Clearly, the desire for freedom is nothing new. All political ideologies have emphasized the importance of freedom, although each has a very different conception of it. Liberation movements, in some ways, are merely continuations or revisions of earlier ideologies—especially liberalism and socialism. However, these new ideologies seek freedom from oppression and domination, which, according to advocates of liberation movements, earlier ideologies either mistakenly neglected or deliberately ignored. Moreover, these movements propose distinct and novel strategies to overcome and end oppression.
Liberation movements have several common or core characteristics.
First, each movement has a specific audience—African Americans, women, Muslims in France. Members of each of these target communities are not like people who have chosen to attend a concert and have therefore selected their own crowd. On the contrary, liberation movements target groups that share inherent characteristics such as language, race, gender, etc. These movements hold that whether or not these characteristics are voluntary, they form a significant part of the identity of individuals who share them. In other words, how others perceive a person and how a person perceives themselves largely depends on states and conditions such as language, skin color, or gender—factors over which the individual has little or no control.
According to liberation movements, people are not simply individuals who can be freed merely as individuals. People find identity within particular groups, and others identify them as members of these groups—for example, as African Americans, women, Muslims in France, and so on. Thus, these liberation movements are typically associated with what is referred to as identity politics.
The second characteristic is the assumption that a dominant group oppresses or mistreats each of the targeted groups. The word oppression refers to the various tools—customary, intellectual, legal, or linguistic—used by certain people to suppress, crush, or otherwise violate others. That is why white people have oppressed Black people, men have oppressed women, colonizers have oppressed indigenous people, and followers of the majority religion have oppressed religious minorities—and continue to do so.
The third characteristic shared by all liberation movements is the aim to liberate the oppressed group not only from external pressures or constraints—such as unjust or discriminatory laws, or barriers to education, housing, jobs, etc.—but also from internal limitations. Internal limitations refer to beliefs and attitudes that the oppressed have ultimately accepted as truth—without critical awareness—thus blinding their desire for freedom or emancipation. Therefore, liberation movements address those who, in some form, have accepted or participated in their own oppression or victimhood.
For instance, some Black individuals may have adopted white values and internalized racist views toward themselves. Frantz Fanon, in his book Black Skin, White Masks, attempts to examine the behavior of Black individuals through the metaphor of the “white mask.” Similarly, some women may have accepted men’s interpretations and explanations of their dissatisfaction. The continuation of dominance—whether based on type, class, culture, gender, or race—depends on the continued acceptance of the status quo by the oppressed group as something natural, normal, or inevitable. Overthrowing the dominance and legitimacy of the ruling group requires a transformation in the worldview and mindset of the oppressed.
The fourth characteristic of liberation movements stems from this: the goal of all is to raise awareness and change the worldview of individuals who—albeit reluctantly, unknowingly, or unconsciously—have participated in their own oppression or victimhood. This participation can take many forms. For example, a Black person may feel socially or intellectually inferior to white people; women may perceive themselves as helpless or at least weaker than men, and so on. The aim of various liberation movements is to confront and critically engage with the sources of these feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, or shame—and thereby achieve the “liberation” or “emancipation” of members of oppressed groups and assist them in helping themselves.
 |
|
A significant part of this effort involves strengthening an individual’s identification with their group. For example, a woman who primarily identifies as a wife, mother, or church member is unlikely to view herself as an oppressed woman. If she can be brought to see herself as a woman whose opportunities and life circumstances are largely shaped by her gender, she is more likely to recognize her shared struggles with other women and join in the collective fight for mutual liberation.
The fifth and final goal of liberation movements is also to liberate the oppressors—freeing them from the illusion of superiority and recognizing their former victims as fellow human beings. The aim of all liberation movements is to break those mentally constructed chains that have shaped a miserable life for humankind.
Since each liberation movement targets a specific group, their structure, arguments, and appeal can be better understood when we pay close attention to their intended audiences.
Freedom
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, Black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
It may seem strange, but every ideology claims to defend and promote freedom. Freedom takes shape through two roles: evaluative and programmatic. That is, all ideologies condemn societies that do not promote freedom and promise to promote it themselves. However, each ideology defines freedom in its own way.
Since all ideologies claim to promote freedom, this concept serves as a suitable basis for comparing and contrasting different ideologies. According to Gerald MacCallum, every conception of freedom has three elements:
-
(a) The Agent
-
(b) The Obstacle or Barrier preventing the agent
-
(c) The Goal the agent seeks to achieve
Thus, every statement about freedom can be expressed in this form:
"(a), in order to achieve (c), is/is not hindered by (b)."
In other words, to say someone is free means they are free from something, and therefore free to do something. The agent is the person, group, or nation who is or should be free. But the free agent is not absolute. For someone to be free, they must be able to pursue their goals—whether it’s expressing their opinion, practicing religious rites, getting an education in their mother tongue, or simply strolling in a city park.
Still, no one can be free in pursuing their goals unless they are free from specific barriers, constraints, or limitations. These barriers can take many forms—walls, chains, unjust laws, poverty, to name a few. But the key point is: whenever an obstacle prevents an agent from achieving their aim, they cannot be considered free.
Therefore, “freedom” refers to a relationship in which an agent, free from barriers, is free to attain a specific goal.
The defense of human freedoms has long been claimed by many ideologies. However, it appears that the advocates of certain ideologies have failed to properly safeguard the freedom and national identity of oppressed nations—and in some cases, have even committed horrific human atrocities.
A striking example in the Middle East is the massacre and betrayal of a nation, jointly orchestrated by Soviet communism and American liberalism, and carried out by the Shah’s imperial army in the name of territorial integrity in 1946 (1325 SH). A government, established by the will of the Azerbaijani people to defend their national and civil liberties under the leadership of Mir Jafar Pishevari, was overthrown. A nation was massacred—and that day is ironically called the “Day of the Liberation of Azerbaijan.”
By “nation,” I refer to a conscious human group familiar with the formation of a society, sharing a common culture, and clearly belonging to a marked territory—or in the words of Manuel Castells, “cultural communities constructed in the minds of people and their collective memory through shared history and political projects.”
The term “Nation of Azerbaijan” refers to those individuals who share Azerbaijani language, culture, and history, consider the Azerbaijani region as their homeland, and have a shared vision of the future embedded in their collective consciousness. However, the formation of this shared future and the transition of Azerbaijani society into a full-fledged nation-state has been delayed due to discriminatory mechanisms and assimilationist policies pursued by the dominant system and, at times, by other societal forces.
In recent years, we are witnessing the emergence and expansion of a discourse aimed at reviving and accelerating the formation of this collective future. This discourse is founded on raising awareness and reconstructing the lost meaning of life for the Azerbaijani individual—who faces daily oppression, discrimination, violation, and denial.
These injustices are perpetrated by the discriminatory system in both overt and covert forms—and the national discourse of Azerbaijan aims to eliminate all of them.
Overt and Covert Oppression
Overt Oppression (Discrimination)
-
Politics and Political Oppression
-
Culture and Cultural Oppression
-
Economy and Economic Oppression
“After the re-occupation of Azerbaijani cities, the noble state soldiers, under the explicit orders of Mohammad Reza Shah, carried out collective punishments against innocent and defenseless people—mass killings, arson, looting, and widespread sexual assault were committed... Since that day, Azar 21 [December 12], named as Army Day, has been a public holiday, and on this day, the 'Liberation of Azerbaijan' is celebrated.”
(Katouzian, p. 200)
Before discussing these acts of oppression, it may be useful—though perhaps not strictly necessary—to briefly point out that the life and social evolution of any nation can be divided into two aspects: civilization and culture.
-
The civilizational aspect of society includes politics and economy, representing the objective and tangible conditions outside the individual psyche.
-
The cultural aspect encompasses the subjective and mental dimensions of a society—it is essentially the collective psyche of the people. This includes their will, emotions, desires, beliefs, values, and inner convictions.
With this basic clarification, I now attempt to examine—step by step—the deliberate, expanding oppression imposed on the Nation of Azerbaijan.
1. Politics and Political Oppression
If we consider politics as the management and regulation of necessities to achieve and activate all dimensions and potentials of a nation within the sphere of power—then the denial or mockery of these characteristics by a dominant nation, and forgetfulness of them by the oppressed nation, constitutes political oppression, and signals a society in decline.
Examples of political oppression inflicted upon Azerbaijanis in today’s Iran include:
-
Denial of self-governance for Azerbaijanis
-
Severe centralization and continued imposition of top-down policies from the center
-
Unconditional dependency on the political and power center
-
Unequal distribution of political power
-
Lack of political security
2. Culture and Cultural Oppression
Culture is the soul and inner being of a nation—it embodies the internal, spiritual life of a society. Draining this inner life is the greatest human tragedy. Replacing it with the culture of another nation benefits neither group; in fact, it acts as a double-edged sword, harming both.
Cultural distinctions between nations are blessings and necessities—they are turning points in the flow of existence. Therefore, cultural homogenization, or grinding different cultures together, and violating this natural diversity, especially by a dominant nation, is not only an unforgivable injustice, but a direct assault on human dignity.
Examples of cultural oppression faced by Azerbaijanis in present-day Iran include:
-
Fragmentation and undermining of Azerbaijani identity
-
Implantation of a sense of cultural inferiority in comparison to the dominant, aggressive culture
-
Prohibition of learning and using the mother tongue in administrative, educational, and judicial systems
-
Lack of educational and promotional spaces in cultural, scientific, and artistic fields
3. Economy and Economic Oppression
Human interaction with objects—discovering, producing, and working to meet the needs of society for a dignified life and societal balance—is inherent in the concept of economy. Economy is one of the core factors in the growth, development, and balance of a society and plays a critical role in nation-building.
Economic oppression is manifested by blocking access and restricting the ability of a nation to earn, discover, and accumulate wealth from its own resources and opportunities. It also involves making that nation economically dependent on a paternalistic, trickle-down system of dominance.
Examples of economic oppression against Azerbaijanis in modern Iran include:
-
Lack of investment proportional to the existing capacities of the Azerbaijani region
Despite vast potential, the government has not only failed to invest adequately, but instead pursues deliberate policies of destruction in Azerbaijan. -
On the other hand, large-scale investments are being made in:
-
Heavy industries
-
Mining
-
Desert reclamation
-
Drainage projects
-
Water transfer from the western slopes of the Zagros Mountains through massive tunnels to Yazd, Isfahan, and Kerman provinces
-
This shows the other side of the coin—increasing investment in central regions, while depriving and draining natural resources from Azerbaijani lands to fuel discriminatory policies.
The result is that even natural blessings are sacrificed in service of systematic inequality—while vast costs are incurred to force vegetation to grow in the salt deserts of the central provinces.
Covert Oppression (Humiliation)
“Just as the bourgeoisie shapes the image of the worker, the life of the colonizer demands and defines the image of the colonized. For if that image were not presented, the behavior of the colonizer—of the bourgeois city-dweller—would be scandalous… Thus, in the mythical image of the colonized, incredible laziness is imprinted, and in the noble image of the colonizer, love for labor. From that moment on, the colonizer suggests that employing the colonized is inherently inefficient, and thereby justifies the unbelievably low wages he pays.”
— Albert Memmi, p. 40
The issue is not limited to the tangible forms of oppression previously discussed. It becomes far more complex when, under the influence of humiliations and psychological pressures imposed on the Azerbaijani individual, all mental norms are altered and their value system is turned upside down. In such a state, the individual comes to accept the status quo, becomes indifferent toward it, and may even go so far as to justify the humiliations and discrimination.
This state of alienation has occurred in many human societies dominated by discrimination. One example is the Black community in the United States before 1968. Dr. William Grier referred to this psychological state and alienation as the “Black Anger Syndrome”—a form of violence and disgust toward white people that Black individuals take out on themselves. By analyzing this syndrome, we may better understand the roots of crime, drug abuse, and black market economies that existed in Black neighborhoods prior to the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr.
Today, however, African Americans—having reclaimed their lost identity and pride—have risen to the highest levels in society, economy, and even political power.
Equally noteworthy are the analyses of Frantz Fanon in his book "Black Skin, White Masks", where he explores the despair of Black people who attempt to adopt the values and worldviews of white society—and in doing so, lose their true identity and self-respect. Fanon argues that to escape this deplorable state, Black individuals must transform their inner beliefs, and this transformation occurs when they begin to doubt white culture and realize that the values and lifestyle of white people are not inherently superior or desirable.
This very condition is also mirrored in the experience of some women's rights activists. By choosing the wrong method of struggle, some become estranged from their true identity and end up as second-class men. These are women who, instead of emphasizing their own unique qualities, strive to adopt all roles and characteristics of men.
At present, Azerbaijani society finds itself in a similar psychological state. Perhaps with some latitude, we could call this the “Azerbaijani Identity Syndrome.” Every day in this society, we encounter an alarming perspective—a mentality that shamelessly justifies deprivation and foolishness, and seeks to normalize it.
It is a logic that attempts to universalize discriminatory attributes, insisting on projecting certain degrading traits as inherent to a nation. A logic that judges scientists, cultural elites, literary figures, and intellectuals of the Azerbaijani-Turkish community all with the same brush: naive.
A logic that attempts to generalize:
“Azerbaijanis are like this.”
“Turks are like that.”
And in every instance of stupidity, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misery, the response echoes:
“Are you Turkish?”
The roots of this logic must be traced back to ninety years of authoritarian and chauvinistic policies implemented by ruling regimes in Iran—a topic too extensive for this discussion. Nonetheless, one of the core aims of the Azerbaijani national discourse is precisely to overturn this logic. Through raising awareness, this discourse aims to shatter these false mental norms, bring meaning to life, end the internalization of oppression, and rebuild lost national pride.
The Shame of Discrimination
“Here you are—100 Black men… in chains, in cages, tamed, in pain, in front, in form, full of dreams, full of need, bleeding, limping, brotherly, dignified, beloved, calm, at home, listening, in love, devout, confined, transforming—Here. Here. Here… I desperately want to be one of you.” 2
Just as colonized and oppressed life is filled with shame, and just as in Hegel’s master-slave dialectic the slave’s life is filled with misery and the disgrace of bondage, the master too bears the shame of being a master. The colonizer and the oppressor live with this shame as well. Though it may be hidden by the material and symbolic benefits of their oppression, it doesn’t last forever.
The day the slave refuses to remain a slave, the day the Azerbaijani individual becomes aware of their rights, the day the colonized stands up to the colonizer, then the master is freed from the disgrace of slavery, the chauvinist is freed from the disgrace of ethnic superiority, and the colonizer is freed from the shame of colonialism.
This, too, is one of the essential goals of the Azerbaijani national discourse—to transform the mindset of all those who consciously or unconsciously benefit from the discrimination and humiliation of the Azerbaijani nation, and to liberate them from the shame of chauvinism and domination, thus restoring their lost humanity.
Footnotes
[1] “Black Rage Syndrome”
[2] Peter J. Harris, Elegy for the Anonymous Brothers, from: Wideman and Preston, 1995: x–xi
References
-
Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized; translated by Homa Nategh; Tehran: Kharazmi Publishing.
-
Manuel Castells, The Information Age; translated by Ahad Aligholian, Afshin Khakbaz, and Hassan Chavoshian; Tehran: Tarh-e No, 2001 [1380 SH].
-
Terence Ball & Richard Dagger, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal; translated by Ahmad Sabouri; Ministry of Foreign Affairs Special Library – Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Center for Printing and Publications, 2003 [1382 SH].
-
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth; translated by F. Bagheri; Tehran: Mowla Publishing, 1982 [1361 SH].
-
Frantz Fanon, Africa’s Revolution; translated by Mohammad Amin Kardan; Tehran: Kharazmi Publishing.
-
Homa Katouzian, The Political Economy of Iran; translated by Mohammadreza Nafisi and Kambiz Azizi; Tehran: Markaz Publishing, 2009 [1388 SH].
درآمدی بر گفتمان ملی در آذربایجان - بخش اول
درآمدی بر گفتمان ملی در آذربایجان - بخش دوم
Original Farsi Article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140731032227/http://ruzbeh-s.blogfa.com/post-10.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20140731043858/http://ruzbeh-s.blogfa.com/post-11.aspx